But a smaller engine produces less greenhouse gases.
This is incorrect, and if you'd simply bother reading this thread and the links provided, you'd know better than to say that.
-- CO2 production is based upon fuel economy, not displacement. Fuel economy is a function of a combination engine output, vehicle weight, driving conditions, driving style and vehicle maintenance
-- The production of "air pollution", as defined by EPA, does not neatly correlate with engine displacement. Read the EPA data, and you'll see that some verions of the 2.5 liter Nissan Sentra pollute more than Corvettes and Aston Martin DB7's, among others.
On the whole, you'd accomplish more by expanding equipment requirements for cars that are commonly driven than you would by attacking a few Bugattis that have yet to hit the market.
"But a smaller engine produces less greenhouse gases.
This is incorrect, and if you'd simply bother reading this thread and the links provided, you'd know better than to say that"
I think he is assiduously ignoring the information that the 2002 330i BMW throws off more greeen house gasses than the Corvette Z06. The BMW 330i has of course a smaller engine than the Corvette Z06. Also BMW 540i for a V8 is more efficient at generating green house gasses (and again is smaller than the Chevy small block V8) Frankly to me no big deal. Now I realize it is his opinion, but the above has been his mantra and it aint necessarily so!!!
In part yes, in part no. A WOT a Vette is going to produce more greenhouse gases than a SCION at WOT. Furthermore the EPA mileage standards are being revisited. If you researched sites that listed greenhouse gas pollution, it is a clear trend, higher horsepower engines tend to produce more greenhouse pollution. As was shown in a previous post comparing a E320 against a 4 cylinder engine, the E320 gets better gas mileage, but produces far more total pollution.
My thought though is to tax the excess consumption/total pollution on a sliding scale, both in low weight high horsepower (even those with supposed great gas mileage) and high weight passenger duty vehicles.
I think you are winking at the problem. It is the millions of overpowered sedans that put out the bulk of whatever. Go after the 200HP+ vehicles. Anything over a 175 HP in a family vehicle is unneeded to keep up with the flow. Let's make a difference if we are going after polluters. Refuse to license any car that does not meet current EPA standards. Think of the boom in car sales. There is no doubt that a 5 year old Camry pollutes more than a new Corvette. A 2006 V6 Camry 3L engine puts out 8.2 tons of GHG, and the 6L Corvette V8 puts out 8.8 tons. And I would bet that the Camry gets driven a lot more than the Corvette. So lets go after the REAL polluters. The Family Sedans with high HP.
"There is no doubt that a 5 year old Camry pollutes more than a new Corvette."
Well, it is true the older a car gets relatively a new car will always have better standards. The problem with the figures you cite is they are not based on the probable real usage of either vehicle. A Vette driven as intended will have emissions that dwarf the Camry.
A Vette driven as intended will have emissions that dwarf the Camry.
You are assuming a lot. My neighbors with Vettes are much more sane than the ones with rice rockets. I also think you are beating a dead horse. As long as people can afford more HP they will buy it. No matter how environmentally astute they may be. I think the sales of the RX400h is a prime example. Those people that paid $10k more for the hybrid think they are doing something for the environment. You are not going to legislate common sense no matter how much you try.
So how much C02 is emitted beating a dead horse!? Ow much C02 is emitted from a dead horse while it is being beaten?
Shall we also tax people who emit more C02, a tax? Fat folks, athletes like Lance Armstrong. Man I'd sure like to be the Mafia boss who gets a cut of this 293M USA customer taxation base!
Yup! while the Corvette might be KD Shapiro's whipping boy's poster child, the fact remains that IF the Corvette is less driven,
(actually it is if what a large majority of Vettes sell for with low low low mileage is any indication,say 2000 miles per year)
THEN indeed it is the bread and butter, 12-15k miles per year vehicles such as BMW, Subaru, Honda Toyota, etc, etc, that throw off the most "pollution". Indeed a commute (15,000 miles)Prius throws off more than a Z06 Corvette 3.6 tons vs 1 ton for the Corvette.
So indeed the methods to "penalize" commute traffic already exist! Its called buy more gas; pay more! And pay more taxes!! (volume)
The links are nice, but they don't support what you've said re: how CO2 is produced. One link discusses emissions caps vs. emissions fees, while the other is a lookup for CO2 emissions that is already available from the EPA data and doesn't reference your argument at all.
My comments re: the EPA had nothing to do with how the EPA measures fuel economy, but is based upon how CO2 is produced. From the EPA:
Vehicles with lower fuel economy create more carbon dioxide- the most important human-made greenhouse gas- than vehicles with higher fuel economy. Every gallon of gasoline your vehicle burns puts 20 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
So of course a Corvette will produce more CO2 than a Scion, because it uses more fuel. But a Scion is producing more particulate matter than a Corvette. Look at the EPA data, and this becomes clear: The Scion Xb and Xc are producing 50% more NOx, 15% more organic components, and 3 times the particulate matter of the Corvette, while the Xc produces about the same.
.."There is no doubt that a 5 year old Camry pollutes more than a new Corvette."
Well, it is true the older a car gets relatively a new car will always have better standards. The problem with the figures you cite is they are not based on the probable real usage of either vehicle. A Vette driven as intended will have emissions that dwarf the Camry. "...
Again, I would not consider 2001 Corvette 8.5 tons vs 1996 Camry 8.0 tons DWARFING!!
Again if a Vette is driven (like in the real world) the Camry give FAR more!! 5000 miles 2.8 tons vs 15,000 miles 8 tons.
But the yearly production of Vettes (34,000) is DWARFED by the yearly production of Camry's. (Camry posted (2005 sic)year-end sales of 431,703,http://www.toyota.com/about/news/corporate/2006/01/04-1-sales.html)Just this fact alone dictates the Camry is by far dwarfs the Corvette in pollution.
So indeed just as gagrice might agree, (don't want to put words in his mouth, or even put him near when the fhit hits the san) most of the hot air is generated by the very same cars KDShapiro sees as saving the planet!!!! The actual pollution actually generated DWARFS the Corvette and by HUGE amounts!!! Essentiall unmeasurable amounts. So KDShapiro indeed has it totally back wards.
Well, let's not take things too far. To the extent that horsepower is an indicator of greater fuel consumption, which it certainly can be a fair amount of the time, he is correct.
Where he is incorrect is (a) to assume that displacement = horsepower, when this is not the case, (b) to presume that output is the only culprit in fuel consumption, when it is not and (c) to believe that small engines are necessarily cleaner than larger ones, which is clearly not the case in many instances.
I do support the notion of consuming less fuel, but even his own link promotes pollution fees and taxes, rather than caps on emissions, as the primary way to get there. To bring his own link to the discussion here, it would be preferable to make people pay for the emissions that they create, regardless of how they make them.
Too far, would be for me to advocate running Corvette Z06's in place of the Camry's bread and butter commutes. This, in view of reality is really a silly notion as evem KD would agree. Although some Corvette owners do use it for commuting. (for discussion purposes 12-15k per year.) However those folks are in the EXTREME minority. (as an example 12.5% of the population,=4250)
Now granted KD has suspended disbelief to graphically illustrate his point (from an argumentation point of view I can and do grant him that). But as I have said, the reality is FAR FAR FAR different. Did I say far different?
I also would agree the less use the better, or greater the mpg the better.
However, the Camry and the Z06 have essentially the SAME mpg!!!!!! Corvette 19/28 combo 22 vs Camry 20/27 combo 22. 8.5 tons vs 8.5 tons, lev 2 car vs lev 2 car. When does same/same become significantly different?
So given same/same but numbers being 34,000 vs 431,000 which segement pollutes more?
Checking the above site a Vette rates a 3 while the Camry rates a 6/7. A 10 is best in terms of pollution index. So I am not sure where a Vette winds up polluting less than a Camry? Remember denial is not just a river in Egypt.
YOU are the acknowledged MASTER of denial!! I would yield to your pre eminence!
Again, given 34,000 per year (Z06 is only app 7,000, 2001 was only 5335 or so) vs 431,000 Camry's ONLY per year Toyota even with its so call "improvements" STILL produces more pollution, and by a HUGE volume and of course percentage. Yes I know reality is not all it is cracked up to be.
Actualy there is a structural reason for all this angst. City, County, State, Fed governments. All would enlist folks as volunteers.
So for example, out of the 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year the average driver puts on the car how much is dedicated to getting to work? As most folks are aware commuting to work is not tax deductible.
For those that can WALK to work you are indeed from that point of view fortunate and you are part of an extreme minority. Most of the regulations make it almost impossible to live within walking distance of your work. There are of course exceptions, but we are talking of the average driver?
In the context of governments, paying taxes: telephone, gas, electric, garbage,water, sewer, tolls, fuel, real estate, income taxes, etc. I hope I haven't left any out.
"Transportation End-Use Sector. Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 32 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2003.3 Virtually all of the energy consumed in this enduse sector came from petroleum products. Over 60 percent of the emissions resulted from gasoline consumption for personal vehicle use. The remaining emissions came from other transportation activities, including the combustion of diesel fuel in heavy-duty vehicles and jet fuel in aircraft."
So if my calculator is correct 60% x 32% is approximately 20% of CO2 of human-origin comes from personal autos. If we reduced fuel consumption 10% by eliminating low mpg vehicles, we can reduce human-orign CO2 by 2%. Unfortunately because our population and economy are growing our fuel demand goes up even as our per capita usage would go down. We need more electricity and that causes CO2 to go up, every year. I don't see reducing hp or getting a few mpg more as doing anything to stop overall CO2 emissions.
The only ways to make a major dent in CO2 emissions from increasing each year is: a long global economic depression, a very bad pandemic, a world war, or a breakthru to fusion energy. I only like 1 of those choices. Give your Congressman a call and tell them to put the pedal-to-the-metal on ITER. http://www.iter.org/index.htm
I truly do not question KD's intentions, it is well stated and even if it were not, repeated repeatedly despite lack of intergration of "non conforming" data. One can not fault his counting the grains of sand. However there are the rest of the beaches!!
My thought though is to tax the excess consumption/total pollution on a sliding scale, both in low weight high horsepower (even those with supposed great gas mileage) and high weight passenger duty vehicles.
Why not go directly to the problem you want to address by proposing a large increase in taxes on all fossil fuels...a carbon tax? If you want to encourage less use of something just tax the thing itself.
I am not suggesting this is a good idea, just that it is a better way to get the results you want.
If you want to encourage less use of something just tax the thing itself.
That's exactly right. Except what's really going on here is that you have a few people here who really just want to reduce driving speeds, and they are hoping that this attack on performance cars is one back-door way to get there. These other concerns are really not their priority, otherwise they'd want to take action against any and all vehicles that contribute to the problem, not just the faster ones.
Well that is just silly. It does not require a performance car to speed, anyway...a lower powered car just takes longer to get the speed up there. I once got up to 85 mph while towing a 1200 pound trailer, with a 4 cyl 99 HP minivan. :surprise:
It does not require a performance car to speed, anyway...a lower powered car just takes longer to get the speed up there.
At last...a voice of reason. Of course, a performance car isn't needed to drive quickly. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, any modern passenger car sold in the US and Canada is capable of driving at speeds that would exceed the speed limits and make those particular posters wince.
If the government and society were serious about stopping excessive speeding, it would be very simple to implement. Every car could be fitted with an electronic or mechanical governor, set to the maximum speed in any state. I believe that is 75mph in Texas right now? So every vehicle could be set with that as a max. regardless of the hp and acceleration capabilities.
Have the governor checked every inspection. Anyone who tampers with the device and say gets caught going 100mph would be guilty of a felony with many thousands in fines and jail-time. That would eliminate 99.9% of the drivers from tampering.
Now I'm not really a supporter of that; I'm just pointing out that the government's certainly doesn't have it's heart into it. Most people are hypocrites when it comes to driving. You can ask a majority of people if they support the existing traffic laws and they'll say yes; then they'll go out and disregard them.
"China's oil firms began investing abroad in the late 1990s, after double-digit economic growth outstripped supplies from domestic fields that had met its needs for decades. Rising family incomes have led to an explosion in private car sales, while industry demands for plastics and other petrochemical products have soared."
"And with economic growth forecast above 9 percent in coming years, China's total oil and gas imports are expected to rise sharply."
you: When did this thread become a critique of pollution?
me: You're right; we shouldn't spend so much time explaining that a Band-Aid just isn't going to work for a person who has had their leg bit off by a shark.
And truly you have yet to take anything I say with any consideration!
While cars like the Z06 etc (aka high hp) might be the poster children for your vilification on the pollution issue, the fact of the matter is the cars doing the majority of the "polluting" are indeed mainstream cars which you have time and time demonstrated you have absolutely no problem with. (Camry, Corolla, BMW, MB, GM, and Ford products. etc etc.)
Given the example of the 431,000 per year Camry vs the Z06 Corvette 34,000 per year, you have more than shown your pre eminence!
I don't know how you would magically suspend the other 430,999 Camry's from polluting, if only your example is happening. And as I cited, the government data indicates the vette has essentially the same numbers as the Camry.
Lets move on you obviously either dont get it, ignoring it or truly have some other agenda that is not supported by the facts.
So given the government numbers, the Vette actually produces more power, gives the same mpg as the Camry with 2 less cylinders. In fact one can deduce the vette is indeed more efficient. I think this galls you for some reason. If it does you should really work on Toyota. In your specific case you should work on BMW.
It's not 34,000 Vettes pollute less than 431,000 Camry. It's 1 Vette pollutes more than 1 Camry.
That may be true, but the overall macro problem of pollution creation would get better results if the emphasis was placed on the Camrys rather than on the Corvettes, because there a lot more Camrys.
You'd accomplish far more simply by putting California-standards emissions equipment on every car and truck sold in the US (or for that matter, throughout the planet) than you would by targeting the owners of a few niche products. Generally, results get generated when emphasis on placed on changes that create real bang for the buck.
Would you rather do something that is meaningful, or would you rather just lash out at performance car drivers because you enjoy the symbolism? Assuming that you're serious, this seems more greatly inspired by fear and envy than it does by a desire for rational public policy.
..."That may be true, but the overall macro problem of pollution creation would get better results if the emphasis was placed on the Camrys than on the Corvettes, because there a lot more Camrys. "...
Exactly!!! If you tax and limit the Corvettes, in effect you give carte blanche for the Camry's to create the majority of the pollution. As your logic goes would solve nothing. I mean if you really wanted more taxation you should tax the Camrys, which produce the majority of the pollution.
So if I can understand your denial, what you are saying is 34,000 cars pollute more than 431,000 cars essentially with the same numbers?
(8.5 tons vs 8.5 tons, lev 2 vs lev2, Vette mpg 19/28 combo 22 vs Camry 20/27 combo 22.)
You continually use adjectives such as "massive", "excessive", etc., but none of us know what that means.
Words such as excessive and massive are commonly used by automotive journalists when writing about high powered cars. I do recall seeing reviews of cars with approx 400+ HP up to 1000 HP where these words were in the text of articles.
Dictionary:
Excess – n. an amount or quantity greater than is necessary Excessive – adj. being too much or too great Massive – adj. larger or greater than normal
Addressing Board Topic – Is 400, 500, 600 1000 HP necessary for cars, given the present posted speed limits in US?
Consider Bugatti with 1000 HP which will be sold as street legal. Road test of Bugatti by Car and Driver stated that 500 HP was used to get to 185 MPH and the remaining 500 HP was used to get to top speed around 230 MPH.
So, with regards to Board Topic, how should 1000 HP engine of Bugatti be characterized? Insufficient, Adequate, Excessive?
One can read similar road tests of Z06, Viper and so forth, regarding top speeds that they attain.
If HP of Bugatti, Z06, Viper, etc. are deemed adequate, should US speed limits be raised to 180-230 MPH to accommodate drivers of these cars? Is US discriminating against these drivers, and also M's, AMG's, etc. drivers, by not allowing them to legally drive their cars at speeds their engines were designed for?
I really do not think anyone is making a case for "necessary", past given parameters for given applications. Since you do not list your state, I am sure it lists what is the min hp necessary for a motorcycle to operate on a freeway. All you need do is go to your particular states' VC which covers this and do tha math. Pass that, it is really up to the market.
I truly see no real campaign to go back to the 1970 VW Beetle with 57 hp!?? In fact while 31-34 mpg was good with the VW, The Honda Civic gets 37-41. In fact the Honda Civic, which is the quintessential economy car (Edmunds.com) has 110 hp, which is nearly double.
If HP of Bugatti, Z06, Viper, etc. are deemed adequate, should US speed limits be raised to 180-230 MPH to accommodate drivers of these cars?
What a strawman argument. Who is suggesting this?
In any case, I've always argued for the solution proposed by traffic engineers -- a speed limit based upon the flow of traffic, except in those few circumstances when such a limit is inappropriate. Not sure where you live, but in my neck of the woods, I don't see many people driving 185 mph.
However, the Camry and the Z06 have essentially the SAME mpg!!!!!!
That is not what I see in "real world" driving tests in various magazines. Camry is quite a bit better.
Not a board topic, but generally, as HP of cars goes up, MPG goes down. Also, as other posters have pointed out, have to compare apples to apples, which would be current technology approx 2005-2006. Can't compare 1999 to 2006.
As example, look at summary of R & T for MPG. Make sure to exclude the estimated MPGs.
In any case, I've always argued for the solution proposed by traffic engineers -- a speed limit based upon the flow of traffic, except in those few circumstances when such a limit is inappropriate. Not sure where you live, but in my neck of the woods, I don't see many people driving 185 mph
In spirit of keeping on Board Topic -
So, if in CA, folks are going 80-85 MPH in open areas interstate, and speed limits were then posted accordingly, then what amount of 1000 HP engine would driver in Bugatti (from Beverly Hills?) be using? How much EXCESS HP would that Bugatti have at that speed? Would it be 200, 400, 600, 800, etc. HP?
..."Also, as other posters have pointed out, have to compare apples to apples, which would be current technology approx 2005-2006. Can't compare 1999 to 2006."...
I guess by your metric, it is wise to totally ignore the rest of the passenger vehicle fleet of 235,404,000 ??
Also, as other posters have pointed out, have to compare apples to apples, which would be current technology approx 2005-2006. Can't compare 1999 to 2006.
I guess by your metric it is wise to totally ignore the rest of the passenger vehicle fleet of 235,404,000 ??
I offered an example based on an R & T resting on my coffee table. If one has the time, and saves old issues of R & T, could look at various years in past. Don't have these old issues, but are you saying that higher HP cars got better MPG than lower HP cars in decades of 70's, 80's 90's?
How much EXCESS HP would that Bugatti have at that speed? Would it be 200, 400, 600, 800, etc. HP?
This has been already covered. Horsepower isn't just used to achieve higher speeds, but also to enhance performance at the lower and middle ends of the powerband.
You can't claim that a Corvette gets from 0 to 60 mph, or from 50 to 70 mph, with the same lack of joie de vivre or with the sterility of a Camry. A typical performance car buyer is not buying the car strictly for top speed capability, so your point is really moot.
I'm with you on this all the way. If our resident Toyota salesman is correct. Toyota sells 40% of their Camry model with a V6. That car is very close to polluting as much as the Corvette. There is no doubt in my mind the Camry will get more miles per year multiplied by the amount sold. It clearly shows which are the polluters comparatively speaking. I am not saying the Camry V6 will pollute as much as the PU trucks and SUVs out there. But in the spirit of this thread, we are trying to establish how much HP is needed and what is excessive for the speeds we travel. I think it is clear the V6 sedans are excessive.
For the general thread perhaps it needs to be said that the model year business (year to year) is app 17M. 7.2% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
It needs to be kept in mind the models, etc, that hit the market are in accordance with CAFE regulations!!!!???? In other words, why can't people get 44-63 mpg cars such as the VW Jetta TDI? Yup, CAFE standards!!!!
If CAFE standards were raised to 40 MPG instead of 27 MPG. All the MFG companies would have diesel cars available. None of them like paying the fines. So the HP race is on and the MPG stays at 27 MPG. High 20s for a 6L V8 is pretty impressive.
This has been already covered. Horsepower isn't just used to achieve higher speeds, but also to enhance performance at the lower and middle ends of the powerband.
You can't claim that a Corvette gets from 0 to 60 mph, or from 50 to 70 mph, with the same lack of joie de vivre or with the sterility of a Camry. A typical performance car buyer is not buying the car strictly for top speed capability, so your point is really moot.
I guess I understand your position. You claim that all 1000 HP is needed to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph. None of that 1000 HP is excessive. Not even 5 HP. The Bugatti driver would need it all. According to Motor Trend, it accelerates quicker than a NASCAR stocker. But, you contend all of the 1000 HP is needed on public roads.
It actually gets more interesting. Lets say you wanted a good P/W ratio with a 1800# car. What are the impediments to a sub 2600# car? Contrast this with a 150 hp on say a 500# motor bike? Much lower hp??
Comments
This is incorrect, and if you'd simply bother reading this thread and the links provided, you'd know better than to say that.
-- CO2 production is based upon fuel economy, not displacement. Fuel economy is a function of a combination engine output, vehicle weight, driving conditions, driving style and vehicle maintenance
-- The production of "air pollution", as defined by EPA, does not neatly correlate with engine displacement. Read the EPA data, and you'll see that some verions of the 2.5 liter Nissan Sentra pollute more than Corvettes and Aston Martin DB7's, among others.
On the whole, you'd accomplish more by expanding equipment requirements for cars that are commonly driven than you would by attacking a few Bugattis that have yet to hit the market.
This is incorrect, and if you'd simply bother reading this thread and the links provided, you'd know better than to say that"
I think he is assiduously ignoring the information that the 2002 330i BMW throws off more greeen house gasses than the Corvette Z06. The BMW 330i has of course a smaller engine than the Corvette Z06. Also BMW 540i for a V8 is more efficient at generating green house gasses (and again is smaller than the Chevy small block V8) Frankly to me no big deal. Now I realize it is his opinion, but the above has been his mantra and it aint necessarily so!!!
In part yes, in part no. A WOT a Vette is going to produce more greenhouse gases than a SCION at WOT. Furthermore the EPA mileage standards are being revisited. If you researched sites that listed greenhouse gas pollution, it is a clear trend, higher horsepower engines tend to produce more greenhouse pollution. As was shown in a previous post comparing a E320 against a 4 cylinder engine, the E320 gets better gas mileage, but produces far more total pollution.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6148&sequence=0
http://www.smmtco2.co.uk/co2search2.asp
I think you are winking at the problem. It is the millions of overpowered sedans that put out the bulk of whatever. Go after the 200HP+ vehicles. Anything over a 175 HP in a family vehicle is unneeded to keep up with the flow. Let's make a difference if we are going after polluters. Refuse to license any car that does not meet current EPA standards. Think of the boom in car sales. There is no doubt that a 5 year old Camry pollutes more than a new Corvette. A 2006 V6 Camry 3L engine puts out 8.2 tons of GHG, and the 6L Corvette V8 puts out 8.8 tons. And I would bet that the Camry gets driven a lot more than the Corvette. So lets go after the REAL polluters. The Family Sedans with high HP.
Well, it is true the older a car gets relatively a new car will always have better standards. The problem with the figures you cite is they are not based on the probable real usage of either vehicle. A Vette driven as intended will have emissions that dwarf the Camry.
You are assuming a lot. My neighbors with Vettes are much more sane than the ones with rice rockets. I also think you are beating a dead horse. As long as people can afford more HP they will buy it. No matter how environmentally astute they may be. I think the sales of the RX400h is a prime example. Those people that paid $10k more for the hybrid think they are doing something for the environment. You are not going to legislate common sense no matter how much you try.
Shall we also tax people who emit more C02, a tax? Fat folks, athletes like Lance Armstrong. Man I'd sure like to be the Mafia boss who gets a cut of this 293M USA customer taxation base!
Yup! while the Corvette might be KD Shapiro's whipping boy's poster child, the fact remains that IF the Corvette is less driven,
(actually it is if what a large majority of Vettes sell for with low low low mileage is any indication,say 2000 miles per year)
THEN indeed it is the bread and butter, 12-15k miles per year vehicles such as BMW, Subaru, Honda Toyota, etc, etc, that throw off the most "pollution". Indeed a commute (15,000 miles)Prius throws off more than a Z06 Corvette 3.6 tons vs 1 ton for the Corvette.
So indeed the methods to "penalize" commute traffic already exist! Its called buy more gas; pay more! And pay more taxes!! (volume)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
My comments re: the EPA had nothing to do with how the EPA measures fuel economy, but is based upon how CO2 is produced. From the EPA:
Vehicles with lower fuel economy create more carbon dioxide- the most important human-made greenhouse gas- than vehicles with higher fuel economy. Every gallon of gasoline your vehicle burns puts 20 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
So of course a Corvette will produce more CO2 than a Scion, because it uses more fuel. But a Scion is producing more particulate matter than a Corvette. Look at the EPA data, and this becomes clear: The Scion Xb and Xc are producing 50% more NOx, 15% more organic components, and 3 times the particulate matter of the Corvette, while the Xc produces about the same.
Well, it is true the older a car gets relatively a new car will always have better standards. The problem with the figures you cite is they are not based on the probable real usage of either vehicle. A Vette driven as intended will have emissions that dwarf the Camry. "...
Again, I would not consider 2001 Corvette 8.5 tons vs 1996 Camry 8.0 tons DWARFING!!
Again if a Vette is driven (like in the real world) the Camry give FAR more!! 5000 miles 2.8 tons vs 15,000 miles 8 tons.
But the yearly production of Vettes (34,000) is DWARFED by the yearly production of Camry's. (Camry posted (2005 sic)year-end sales of 431,703,http://www.toyota.com/about/news/corporate/2006/01/04-1-sales.html)Just this fact alone dictates the Camry is by far dwarfs the Corvette in pollution.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
Well, let's not take things too far. To the extent that horsepower is an indicator of greater fuel consumption, which it certainly can be a fair amount of the time, he is correct.
Where he is incorrect is (a) to assume that displacement = horsepower, when this is not the case, (b) to presume that output is the only culprit in fuel consumption, when it is not and (c) to believe that small engines are necessarily cleaner than larger ones, which is clearly not the case in many instances.
I do support the notion of consuming less fuel, but even his own link promotes pollution fees and taxes, rather than caps on emissions, as the primary way to get there. To bring his own link to the discussion here, it would be preferable to make people pay for the emissions that they create, regardless of how they make them.
Now granted KD has suspended disbelief to graphically illustrate his point (from an argumentation point of view I can and do grant him that). But as I have said, the reality is FAR FAR FAR different. Did I say far different?
I also would agree the less use the better, or greater the mpg the better.
However, the Camry and the Z06 have essentially the SAME mpg!!!!!! Corvette 19/28 combo 22 vs Camry 20/27 combo 22. 8.5 tons vs 8.5 tons, lev 2 car vs lev 2 car. When does same/same become significantly different?
So given same/same but numbers being 34,000 vs 431,000 which segement pollutes more?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
YOU are the acknowledged MASTER of denial!! I would yield to your pre eminence!
Again, given 34,000 per year (Z06 is only app 7,000, 2001 was only 5335 or so) vs 431,000 Camry's ONLY per year Toyota even with its so call "improvements" STILL produces more pollution, and by a HUGE volume and of course percentage. Yes I know reality is not all it is cracked up to be.
So for example, out of the 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year the average driver puts on the car how much is dedicated to getting to work? As most folks are aware commuting to work is not tax deductible.
For those that can WALK to work you are indeed from that point of view fortunate and you are part of an extreme minority. Most of the regulations make it almost impossible to live within walking distance of your work. There are of course exceptions, but we are talking of the average driver?
In the context of governments, paying taxes: telephone, gas, electric, garbage,water, sewer, tolls, fuel, real estate, income taxes, etc. I hope I haven't left any out.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR69V4zz/
Click on the 05 Trends pdf.
"Transportation End-Use Sector. Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 32
percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2003.3 Virtually all of the energy consumed in this enduse
sector came from petroleum products. Over 60 percent of the emissions resulted from gasoline consumption for
personal vehicle use. The remaining emissions came from other transportation activities, including the combustion
of diesel fuel in heavy-duty vehicles and jet fuel in aircraft."
So if my calculator is correct 60% x 32% is approximately 20% of CO2 of human-origin comes from personal autos. If we reduced fuel consumption 10% by eliminating low mpg vehicles, we can reduce human-orign CO2 by 2%. Unfortunately because our population and economy are growing our fuel demand goes up even as our per capita usage would go down. We need more electricity and that causes CO2 to go up, every year. I don't see reducing hp or getting a few mpg more as doing anything to stop overall CO2 emissions.
The only ways to make a major dent in CO2 emissions from increasing each year is: a long global economic depression, a very bad pandemic, a world war, or a breakthru to fusion energy. I only like 1 of those choices. Give your Congressman a call and tell them to put the pedal-to-the-metal on ITER. http://www.iter.org/index.htm
Why not go directly to the problem you want to address by proposing a large increase in taxes on all fossil fuels...a carbon tax? If you want to encourage less use of something just tax the thing itself.
I am not suggesting this is a good idea, just that it is a better way to get the results you want.
That's exactly right. Except what's really going on here is that you have a few people here who really just want to reduce driving speeds, and they are hoping that this attack on performance cars is one back-door way to get there. These other concerns are really not their priority, otherwise they'd want to take action against any and all vehicles that contribute to the problem, not just the faster ones.
At last...a voice of reason. Of course, a performance car isn't needed to drive quickly. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, any modern passenger car sold in the US and Canada is capable of driving at speeds that would exceed the speed limits and make those particular posters wince.
Have the governor checked every inspection. Anyone who tampers with the device and say gets caught going 100mph would be guilty of a felony with many thousands in fines and jail-time. That would eliminate 99.9% of the drivers from tampering.
Now I'm not really a supporter of that; I'm just pointing out that the government's certainly doesn't have it's heart into it. Most people are hypocrites when it comes to driving. You can ask a majority of people if they support the existing traffic laws and they'll say yes; then they'll go out and disregard them.
"And with economic growth forecast above 9 percent in coming years, China's total oil and gas imports are expected to rise sharply."
From http://channels.netscape.com/pf/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060205/1415359116- - .htm&sc=1333
Getting rid of the Vipers, Ferraris, and AMG's will make this better.
Ahh my friend I took lessons from you.
Isn't this a 'horsepower/speed limit' thread and not a 'pollution is bad' thread?
:confuse:
me: You're right; we shouldn't spend so much time explaining that a Band-Aid just isn't going to work for a person who has had their leg bit off by a shark.
While cars like the Z06 etc (aka high hp) might be the poster children for your vilification on the pollution issue, the fact of the matter is the cars doing the majority of the "polluting" are indeed mainstream cars which you have time and time demonstrated you have absolutely no problem with. (Camry, Corolla, BMW, MB, GM, and Ford products. etc etc.)
Given the example of the 431,000 per year Camry vs the Z06 Corvette 34,000 per year, you have more than shown your pre eminence!
It's not 34,000 Vettes pollute less than 431,000 Camry. It's 1 Vette pollutes more than 1 Camry.
Your eminence!
Lets move on you obviously either dont get it, ignoring it or truly have some other agenda that is not supported by the facts.
So given the government numbers, the Vette actually produces more power, gives the same mpg as the Camry with 2 less cylinders. In fact one can deduce the vette is indeed more efficient. I think this galls you for some reason. If it does you should really work on Toyota. In your specific case you should work on BMW.
That may be true, but the overall macro problem of pollution creation would get better results if the emphasis was placed on the Camrys rather than on the Corvettes, because there a lot more Camrys.
You'd accomplish far more simply by putting California-standards emissions equipment on every car and truck sold in the US (or for that matter, throughout the planet) than you would by targeting the owners of a few niche products. Generally, results get generated when emphasis on placed on changes that create real bang for the buck.
Would you rather do something that is meaningful, or would you rather just lash out at performance car drivers because you enjoy the symbolism? Assuming that you're serious, this seems more greatly inspired by fear and envy than it does by a desire for rational public policy.
Exactly!!! If you tax and limit the Corvettes, in effect you give carte blanche for the Camry's to create the majority of the pollution. As your logic goes would solve nothing. I mean if you really wanted more taxation you should tax the Camrys, which produce the majority of the pollution.
So if I can understand your denial, what you are saying is 34,000 cars pollute more than 431,000 cars essentially with the same numbers?
(8.5 tons vs 8.5 tons, lev 2 vs lev2, Vette mpg 19/28 combo 22 vs Camry 20/27 combo 22.)
Words such as excessive and massive are commonly used by automotive journalists when writing about high powered cars. I do recall seeing reviews of cars with approx 400+ HP up to 1000 HP where these words were in the text of articles.
Dictionary:
Excess – n. an amount or quantity greater than is necessary
Excessive – adj. being too much or too great
Massive – adj. larger or greater than normal
Addressing Board Topic – Is 400, 500, 600 1000 HP necessary for cars, given the present posted speed limits in US?
Consider Bugatti with 1000 HP which will be sold as street legal. Road test of Bugatti by Car and Driver stated that 500 HP was used to get to 185 MPH and the remaining 500 HP was used to get to top speed around 230 MPH.
So, with regards to Board Topic, how should 1000 HP engine of Bugatti be characterized? Insufficient, Adequate, Excessive?
One can read similar road tests of Z06, Viper and so forth, regarding top speeds that they attain.
If HP of Bugatti, Z06, Viper, etc. are deemed adequate, should US speed limits be raised to 180-230 MPH to accommodate drivers of these cars? Is US discriminating against these drivers, and also M's, AMG's, etc. drivers, by not allowing them to legally drive their cars at speeds their engines were designed for?
I truly see no real campaign to go back to the 1970 VW Beetle with 57 hp!?? In fact while 31-34 mpg was good with the VW, The Honda Civic gets 37-41. In fact the Honda Civic, which is the quintessential economy car (Edmunds.com) has 110 hp, which is nearly double.
What a strawman argument. Who is suggesting this?
In any case, I've always argued for the solution proposed by traffic engineers -- a speed limit based upon the flow of traffic, except in those few circumstances when such a limit is inappropriate. Not sure where you live, but in my neck of the woods, I don't see many people driving 185 mph.
That is not what I see in "real world" driving tests in various magazines. Camry is quite a bit better.
Not a board topic, but generally, as HP of cars goes up, MPG goes down. Also, as other posters have pointed out, have to compare apples to apples, which would be current technology approx 2005-2006. Can't compare 1999 to 2006.
As example, look at summary of R & T for MPG. Make sure to exclude the estimated MPGs.
In spirit of keeping on Board Topic -
So, if in CA, folks are going 80-85 MPH in open areas interstate, and speed limits were then posted accordingly, then what amount of 1000 HP engine would driver in Bugatti (from Beverly Hills?) be using? How much EXCESS HP would that Bugatti have at that speed? Would it be 200, 400, 600, 800, etc. HP?
I guess by your metric, it is wise to totally ignore the rest of the passenger vehicle fleet of 235,404,000 ??
pg 11
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2004EARelease.pdf
I guess by your metric it is wise to totally ignore the rest of the passenger vehicle fleet of 235,404,000 ??
I offered an example based on an R & T resting on my coffee table. If one has the time, and saves old issues of R & T, could look at various years in past. Don't have these old issues, but are you saying that higher HP cars got better MPG than lower HP cars in decades of 70's, 80's 90's?
This has been already covered. Horsepower isn't just used to achieve higher speeds, but also to enhance performance at the lower and middle ends of the powerband.
You can't claim that a Corvette gets from 0 to 60 mph, or from 50 to 70 mph, with the same lack of joie de vivre or with the sterility of a Camry. A typical performance car buyer is not buying the car strictly for top speed capability, so your point is really moot.
I must not communicate very well
Lets see:
1970 VW Beetle 31-34 mpg 57 hp
2004 Honda Civic 37-41 mpg 110 hp
Same mpg but different hp?
2001 Corvette Z06 19/28 combo 22 MPG 385 hp
2001 Toyota Camry 20/27 combo 22 MPG 194 hp
It needs to be kept in mind the models, etc, that hit the market are in accordance with CAFE regulations!!!!???? In other words, why can't people get 44-63 mpg cars such as the VW Jetta TDI? Yup, CAFE standards!!!!
If CAFE standards were raised to 40 MPG instead of 27 MPG. All the MFG companies would have diesel cars available. None of them like paying the fines. So the HP race is on and the MPG stays at 27 MPG. High 20s for a 6L V8 is pretty impressive.
You can't claim that a Corvette gets from 0 to 60 mph, or from 50 to 70 mph, with the same lack of joie de vivre or with the sterility of a Camry. A typical performance car buyer is not buying the car strictly for top speed capability, so your point is really moot.
I guess I understand your position. You claim that all 1000 HP is needed to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph. None of that 1000 HP is excessive. Not even 5 HP. The Bugatti driver would need it all. According to Motor Trend, it accelerates quicker than a NASCAR stocker. But, you contend all of the 1000 HP is needed on public roads.